Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee is an important case for the application of the tort of negligence to skilled professionals, particularly medical professionals. It gives its name to the 'Bolam test' - a professional is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professionals skilled in that particular art. The most relevant section of the video is at 0:3:50 -- 0:8:34. A High Court case, Bolam has subsequently been endorsed by numerous Court of Appeal and House of Lords/Supreme Court cases. Rather than a 'judgment' the text rather takes the form of McNair J directing the Jury on the law and providing a summary of the evidence that they had been presented with. This case was later supplemented by the House of Lords in Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority  UKHL 46 (coming soon to this channel). Presumably because it was 'only' a High Court case Bolam is not available on BAILII. However, I was able to find a copy on the website of the Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies: http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/BOLAMV_1%20DOC.pdf In this recording I have not read out the case citations following the cases referred to because I found it was rather distracting and likely not of much use - far better to follow the link above if you wish to find the case itself. Feedback is welcome, as are any recommendations for future cases which deserve to be recorded. I do not own the case report from which this recording was made. I do not own the PDF document from which I read. I am not am not in any way affiliated with the Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies. The purpose of making this recording and its distribution is purely educational, and is not for profit.
Views: 3004 Thomas Mason
This case is one of the most important, or at least one of the most frequently mentioned, cases in Judicial Review cases for English and Welsh cases. The term 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' gets hurled around a lot if you stick your head into the topic. Essentially the case established that in order for a public body's decision to be sufficiently 'unreasonable' for the Courts to interfere it would have to be 'so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it'. This test has been subsequently modified to some small extent, but this case about refusing adolescents entry into cinemas on Sunday remains very significant. The case also neatly sets out other possible grounds of interference such as by taking into account 'irrelevant' considerations or not taking into account 'relevant' considerations. I hope you enjoy this video - it may sound slightly different from my previous ones since I have become somewhat more competent at using Audacity. Most specifically, I actually looked at the tutorials for Audacity. The recording isn't long, and the relevant bits are scattered throughout it. The full case report can be found: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1947/1.html I do not own the case report. I have recorded and distributed this video purely for educational purposes. Feel free to leave comments requesting any specific case law to be recorded in the future.
Views: 1491 Thomas Mason
Donoghue v Stevenson is one of the most important cases in English tort law (and in Scots delict law, but that concerns me far less), creating the modern concept of negligence by way of the 'neighbour' principle. 'Who is my neighbour?' asks Lord Atkin, and proceeds to set out the principle that has guided the tort of negligence ever since. This is a recording of my reading of Donoghue v Stevenson. I read from BAILII: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html . As appears to have been common at the time the judgments are not divided into 'concurring' and 'dissenting', so the following may be useful: Lord Buckmaster (Dissenting): 0:0:36.5 - 0:26:51 Lord Atkin: 0:26:53 - 1:07:48 [Neighbour Principle - 0:30:10 - 0:31:26.10] Lord Tomlin (Dissenting):1:07:48 - 1:10:47 Lord Thankerton: 1:10:49 - 1:19:18 Lord Macmillan: 1:19:19 - 1:52:11 This is my first recording and my first uploading. I am aware that the quality is not perfect, and that I have made several errors. I apologise for both. Any feedback is welcome, as are recommendations as to other cases for me to record. I do not own the case report from which this recording was made. I am not in any way affiliated with BAILII. The purpose of making this recording and its distribution is purely educational, and is not for profit.
Views: 2668 Thomas Mason
So this is my shortest recording so far, but don't let that fool you - Denning made some big changes to the legal landscape in this case. The ‘High Trees House’ case’s importance is that in it the future Lord Denning essentially single-handily established the equitable doctrine of ‘promissory estoppel’. This doctrine prevents the maker of a promise ‘denying’ that the promise was made (the term ‘estoppel’ derives from a French term for cork, suggesting that the maker essentially has to put a sock in it), even though no consideration has been provided for that promise. Strictly speaking the doctrine originates in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co , but it had been slumbering happily for some 69 years before Denning decided to bring it back to the world’s attention. Notably this case is ‘only’ a King’s Bench Division case, and furthermore the particularly significant parts which are arguing a hypothetical are ‘obiter dicta’, this case would not have necessarily been particularly binding – however it pretty much was, and was affirmed by the House of Lords in Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten  UKHL 5. The formulation that Denning put forward in High Trees House was that there had to be: • A promise which was intended to create legal relations; • Which to the knowledge of the promisor was going to be acted on by the promise; and • Which was in fact so acted on. The formulation has changed in subsequent judgments, and now requires that: • There must be a pre-existing contract or legal obligation which is modified; • There must be a clear and unambiguous promise; • There must be an actual change of position; • It must be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on their promise. The full details of when promissory estoppel can or cannot be relied upon are beyond this note (suffice to say it does not give rise to a cause of action and is a ‘shield not a sword’) – but I hope that this case report is of some use. On the basis that the facts of the case are not contained in the judgment itself, I will take a moment to provide a brief summary: In 1937, Central London Property Trust Limited (Central London Property) let a block of flats (in a lease under seal) to High Trees House Limited (High Trees House) for a term of 99 years at a ground rent of £2,500 a year. By early 1940 the war meant that few of the flats were let out and it was clear that High Trees House would be unable to pay the rent. Discussions were conducted, and in January 1940 a letter was written by Central London Property to High Trees House confirming that the ground rent would be reduced to £1,250.High Trees House subsequently paid this reduced sum. By the beginning of 1945 all of the flats were let but High Trees House continued to pay the reduced rent. In September 1945 Central London Properties wrote to them claiming that rent was payable at the higher amount and in order to determine their legal position initiated ‘friendly proceedings’ (I have never established what this means). Central London Properties claimed the difference between the rates for the quarters ending September 29 and December 25, 1945. High Trees House pleaded that the agreement for the lower sum would operate during the whole term of the lease and, alternatively, that the plaintiffs were estopped from demanding the higher rate or had waived their right to do so by their letter. High Trees House is not a Court of Appeal case and so cannot be found on BAILII. However, it is available at many other easily accessible places, including here: http://www.justis.com/titles/iclr_s4720014.html As ever I am at pains to emphasise that my purpose in recording and uploading these videos is for the educational benefit of my viewers/listeners. I am not making, nor am I intending to make, any money from these videos be it directly or through advertising. I do not own the case reports from which I read.
Views: 4894 Thomas Mason